( 1. ) THIS revision petition is preferred by the petitioner Girraj said to be a delinquent juvenile has been convicted by impugned order dated 3-3-2006 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.

95/2006 whereby confirming the order dated 1-3-2006 rejecting bail application of petitioner.

( 2. ) PETITIONER has been charged for committing offence under Sections 302 and 376 of I. P. C. and he is under custody in connection with crime No. 17/2006 registered by police station Vijaypur tehsil Raghogarh district Guna. ft has been observed by appellate court in para 10 of its order that date of birth of delinquent juvenile is 4-10-19s8 and he is a juvenile. Both the courts below rejected the bail application of petitioner on the ground that if petitioner is released on bail, his release would defeat the ends of justice. Aggrieved by impugned order, under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") preferred this revision petition.

( 3. ) IT has been vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a delinquent juvenile. There is no iota of evidence that if he will be released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned Juvenile Board and Appellate Court have erred in holding that if petitioner is released on bail it would defeat the ends of justice. Contrary to that, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of revision petition.

( 4. ) DURING the course of arguments, learned panel lawyer submitted that an enquiry is going on regarding age of petitioner Girraj, so he is not entitled for bail till the completion of enquiry. But first appellate court in para 10 of its impugned order held that as per challan, petitioner has been shown as juvenile and his date of birth is 4-10-1988 as per mark-sheet and this evidence is held to be reliable which means appellate court held that applicant is a juvenile. So. at this stage arguments advanced by learned panel lawyer is not tenable.

( 5. ) SECTION 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act reads as under:

12. Bail of juvenile:- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the officer- in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, made an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order

.

( 6. ) IN 2001 (1) MPWN SN 76 Rahul Mishra v. State of M. P. it has been held by Single Judge of M. P. High Court that once a person is held to be a juvenile delinquent, then Section 18 of the Act (old Act) would govern the question of grant of bail and the custody of juvenile and it will not be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While considering the words "ends of Justice" it has been observed by Hon. S. C. Pandey, J" that words "ends of jus